Henry Fonda known as Juror 8 is the sole rebellious voice who refuses to agree with a unanimous guilty decision. However, uncertain weather the boy is guilty or not, his persistence on re-examining the details of the case slowly starts to change the rest of the juror’s minds. He does this by using various techniques of negotiating, persuasion and power to influence his companions. In the beginning Henry is the only the one to vote not guilty amongst the twelve men, he does because he feels that the group should at least discuss the heavy decision at hand, a mans life. He begins his defense by asking questions instead of trying to prove his point. He is able to sow seeds of uncertainty into a few of the group members and that is all it takes for the conversation to start flowing. Without coming a conclusion, himself, Henry starts to identify some flaws in the case which enables the others to begin to …show more content…
Showing commitment and courage this leads to Juror 9 to appeal with Henry’s contest in that the twelve need to at minimum go over the facts. Under the consistency portion of the principles of persuasion it states that after committing to a position, people are more likely to comply with requests that are consistent with their original position. This shows the techniques that Henry used in this case were extremely effective as he was able to turn the group members attitudes on the situation to begin to question themselves. Authority in a situation can also increase the likelihood of agreement, in this particular case Henry uses another member’s expertise in witnessing knife fights to prove the angle of stabbing was unable to be made from the boys listed height. This knowledge shocks the group and many change their minds after hearing this